I'm assuming normal healthy conditions for the development from conception to birth of a normal healthy embryo- to-infant in everything I've said.

But that is an unwarranted assumption without knowing all of the specifics of each individual case; and it is also not the only KNOWN human being directly involved in every case or any of the other people or factors again in that individual case.

The only KNOWN human directly involved is the mother.

The only people who have the greatest knowledge of all the factors in that particular incident are the mother, possibly the father and the medical staff involved in that particular case.

the point is that I'm talking about normal healthy development and not specific cases, that is I'm speaking in general about the normal experience of pregnancy and birth. In my personal experience that is the typical situation, in which complications are unusual or relatively easily dealt with and physical problems at the level that would necessitate abortion nonexistent.

Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives

This usage of the term "human life" makes the term "human life" useless in determining when it becomes a difficult-moral-question in ending the life of the baby.

I personally don't find it difficult at all. Although in the earliest stages it isn't yet a recognizable human being and it lacks many functions, the fact that it has all the genetic stuff from the very start for developing into a human being if we leave it to nature, that is, the fact that it IS already a human life though not yet a full human being, means to me that morally we are wrong to kill it unless there is some dire medical reason to do so. So to my mind it's not a "difficult" moral question at all if it is a human life and it is.

But you can use other standards if you like. These are practically impossible to determine it seems, since nobody here has come up with a clearcut dividing line. I've suggested some point at which it is recognizably human; or the point at which it has whatever functions you want to define as making it human; or there's the point of viability outside the womb. All these to my mind are well beyond any point I could consider abortion to be morally justified without some dire medical reason, but I'm trying to suggest some criteria different from my own to help get it established what people think allows for abortion to be justifiable.

Perhaps there simply isn't any such biological point, perhaps you have other standards entirely, such as the family and social situation into which the baby would be born, the ability of the mother to care for it and so on.

the point is that I'm talking about normal healthy development and not specific cases, that is I'm speaking in general about the normal experience of pregnancy and birth. In my personal experience that is the typical situation, in which complications are unusual or relatively easily dealt with and physical problems at the level that would necessitate abortion nonexistent.

The point is, you are talking about your fantasy but the decisions are made in reality.

But that is an unwarranted assumption without knowing all of the specifics of each individual case; and there is only one KNOWN human being (the mother) directly involved in every case. Nor do you consider the impact on any of the other people or factors affecting other people in that individual case.

The only people who have the greatest knowledge of all the factors in that particular incident are the mother, possibly the father and the medical staff involved in that particular case.

Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives

Tangle writes:

Percy writes:

Most certainly, but I wasn't saying anything so obvious.

But I was, and I did so many times.

There are two minor issues here. One is why you feel the need to keep repeating what is already obvious to everyone, namely that the development from zygote to fetus is a continuum. Many natural processes are a continuum, there's no controversy here, no one's disputing it, yet you feel the need to repeat it "many times." Strange.

But the other minor issue is that you felt the need to split your quote of my sentence at a point that made me appear to be saying the same thing. I wasn't. It was a comment disagreeing with your continuum of increasing harm with termination.

You split it right before the qualifying phrase that the continuum has increasing harm with termination.

Yes, I did that deliberately to show the two parts to the argument, the bit we agree on and the bit we don't. That way we can avoid doing what we're doing now - arguing about things we agree on.

Everybody agrees on "the bit we agree on." We also agree that objects fall and water is wet.

Harm is also a legal principle and it *is* applied to animals regardless of vet's bills. You can not torture your own dog. It's another subjective moral position.

You're confusing what is legal with what can be shown true and what is right. Laws about abusing dogs (Michael Vick is the poster boy for dog abuse) are because of our emotional attachment to dogs. There are no laws about abusing animals to which we have no emotional attachment, such as wounding a deer who flees until collapsing from loss of blood to die a painful death. Every fall thousands of duck hunters throw hundreds of thousands of rounds of shotgun pellets into the air to randomly wound ducks, many of whom are never retrieved and die a painful death. So much for our vaunted moral position. What is actually subjective is that there is anything moral about our position.

I said I don't know.

And I'm trying to understand why you don't know.

I'm trying to understand why you don't realize you don't know, either. You can't just take a count of how many people share a certain feeling and then declare how they feel to be something we know.

I doubt that there are many people in the world that wouldn't simply know that it would be wrong to arbitrarily kill a baby immediately before birth. Most I suspect would assume that it was first degree murder. This isn't a fine decision to my mind, and I suspect to everyone else's here, it's unthinkable.

The number of people who falsely believe they know something is not a measure of truth. If facts were on your side you'd be talking about facts, but you're instead claiming that many people feel the same way you do. Years ago many people felt differently. You think it progress, I think it change.

You conclusion about a moral duty to protect the fetus is your own view and is nowhere found in Roe v. Wade.

When I typed that I knew you'd jump at this tiny little escape route. I doesn't say moral or ethical and it also says that there's no legal precedent, but still it made a decision in favour of the baby. On what possible grounds other than moral or ethical could that decision have been made?

I think they left it open so that people could read into what they will, which is what you're doing.

You are correct that it is "simply declared that the State a 'compelling interest'", but that isn't equivalent to declaring it a moral position.

What word would you prefer and why on earth do you think it matters? The state says that it is wrong to kill a baby after x weeks. It was compelling. Why has it said that?

They said that because they feel it is wrong, not because they can prove it is wrong.

No, I don't agree with this.

You bloodywell did!

Percy writes:

I think my position is summed up pretty well in the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision quoted in the same Abortion in the United States artcil you cited in your Message 369

But you've invented your own Roe v. Wade interpretation, which I don't agree with. I agree with the actual language of the ruling, not all the things you claim they implied.

Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives

NoNukes writes:

I think your complaint's a red herring distracting from the real issue, that the point of viability cannot be objectively established.

Not a red herring. For a large number of folks in the US, we can say a lot about the available technology and about what would constitute viability of the unborn. In fact, our jurisprudence uses rough rules of thumb regarding viability, with the envelope being pushed in the states as technology improves.

I keep saying I don't know. If our jurisprudence knows then obviously it knows some things I don't know. Please enlighten me and dispel my ignorance.

Yes, there is some "variability", but we have some basic and objective ways to talk about viability. You are simply incorrect about that.

It's pretty hard to be incorrect about things not said. I never said there were no efforts to bring some objectivity into the determination of viability, but consensus is lacking, especially worldwide.

I've said many times that I don't *know

Yes, you have said that. I maintain that there is not much doubt about the issue for which your own answer is "I don't know."

It's an incongruous reality that certainty and lack of facts seem to go hand in hand. The more facts the less people feel they know. It feels to me that the certainty felt by so many reflects a lack of objective data.

Is US law based upon fact or upon feelings and opinions?

Of course, there is some opinion involved. Hopefully, it is informed opinion.One thing we can say with regard to the legal definition is that it does give us an answer. Your own answer uses the term personhood. I asked you if you meant something other than the legal definition, and instead of either answering or helping me understand what you meant, you posted this question. How does that help?

I don't understand all the attention being given legal opinions. Legal opinions are as capable of being wrong or uninformed or underinformed or misinformed as any other opinions. You were the one who seemed to have some awareness of the concept of personhood as a legal construct, so naturally I asked you a question. And your answer was the one I expected. To the extent that personhood is part of our legal foundation it's subjective.

For my part, I doubt personhood is in any objective way entwined in our laws. Wikipedia says (bold in original):

quote:Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty.

I know that it is wrong to arbitrarily kill a baby immediately before is born and if you don't then I'm at a loss to know what to say next that isn't simply offensive.

They said that because they feel it is wrong, not because they can prove it is wrong.

'They feel it's wrong'. Of course they feel that it's wrong! You can't prove that first degree murder is wrong or rape is wrong either. Or that anything is wrong for that matter. These are all moral decisions based on our feelings about harm. Scientific proofs aren't possible in forming these judgements.

But you've invented your own Roe v. Wade interpretation, which I don't agree with. I agree with the actual language of the ruling, not all the things you claim they implied.

How can you agree with Roe which says it's wrong to harm babies after a given time but not agree with Roe saying that?

Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives

Tangle writes:

Percy writes:

Percy doesn't know if there is.

But you agree with the Roe verdict!!

I agree with the portion of the Roe v. Wade decision that was quoted in the Abortion in the United States article you cited, and I don't agree with the layers of interpretation you piled on top of it. One thing Roe v. Wade said is:

quote:We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

So the Supreme Court conceded that it isn't known when life begins. You reinforced this by never responding to the many times I asked you when life begins. Here's a link to Roe v. Wade. The word "harm" only appears twice and not in the context you've been using it. Many uses of the word "compelling" place it in quotes, including the first use:

quote:Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.

How does placing "compelling" in quotes affect its meaning? I don't know and the decision doesn't say.

The verdict that says it's wrong to kill a baby after x weeks. We both agree that. How can you agree and then say you don't know?

The decision doesn't say that. It does take a trimester approach and says that the compelling interest is stronger in each succeeding trimester. It also says there is a compelling interest in maintaining the life of both the fetus and the mother that must be balanced.

I agree with their decision that was made in the absence of objective knowledge, and the decision makes clear that they are doing the best they can without such knowledge.

Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives

Percy writes:

So the Supreme Court conceded that it isn't known when life begins. You reinforced this by never responding to the many times I asked you when life begins.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! I've said over and over again that not only do I not know when life begins but that nobody knows nor will they ever know. The only thing we know for sure is that the path to a baby starts at conception. (And not when gandad says hello to grandma.)

Here's a link to Roe v. Wade. The word "harm" only appears twice and not in the context you've been using it. Many uses of the word "compelling" place it in quotes, including the first use:

And here's what the judgement comes down to

quote:So, rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability.

Now what possible thing can the state have a “compelling interest” (in quote marks, note) in protecting the “potential life” from? Well, the answer is from harm. The harm being to kill it. There's no other possible conclusion.

I agree with their decision that was made in the absence of objective knowledge, and the decision makes clear that they are doing the best they can without such knowledge.

So, like I say, you agree with the decision. But simultaneously claim you don't know.

If all you're saying is that you don't know whether the baby is alive or a person or whatever before birth, well ok, that's a dumb argument but ok, but if you're saying because of that, you don't know whether it's right or wrong to kill a baby just before birth - whilst agreeing with Roe - I just don't know what to say.

Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives

They feel it's wrong'. Of course they feel that it's wrong! You can't prove that first degree murder is wrong or rape is wrong either. Or that anything is wrong for that matter. These are all moral decisions based on our feelings about harm. Scientific proofs aren't possible in forming these judgements.

Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives

I don't understand all the attention being given legal opinions.

I asked you for your definition of personhood. You are the one who introduced the term into our discussion.

Let me recap this line of discussion.. We were discussing Tangle's question about whether a woman could stab an unborn with a knitting needle. You had no answer but said something about personhood. I mentioned the fact that the woman could not be charged with murder or homicide and then asked if you meant something other than the legal definition when you mentioned personhood.

I think the reason for mentioning the legal definition was clear. I was addressing the consequences when answering Tangle's question. I am inquiring what your answer means.

At least I know now that you don't seem to care much about the legal consequences. Perhaps you might explain what you do care about.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives

Tangle writes:

Percy writes:

So the Supreme Court conceded that it isn't known when life begins. You reinforced this by never responding to the many times I asked you when life begins.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! I've said over and over again that not only do I not know when life begins but that nobody knows nor will they ever know.

Since you don't know, why do you keep asking me why I don't know?

The only thing we know for sure is that the path to a baby starts at conception. (And not when gandad says hello to grandma.)

And yet if grandpa never met grandma, no baby.

Here's a link to Roe v. Wade. The word "harm" only appears twice and not in the context you've been using it. Many uses of the word "compelling" place it in quotes, including the first use:

And here's what the judgement comes down to

quote:So, rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability.

Now what possible thing can the state have a “compelling interest” (in quote marks, note) in protecting the “potential life” from? Well, the answer is from harm. The harm being to kill it. There's no other possible conclusion.

A minor note about your quotation marks comment: Realize that you're not quoting from Roe v. Wade. You're quoting from the article you cited, Abortion in the United States. The phrase "compelling interest" doesn't appear between quotation marks in Roe v. Wade. There's the link, look it up.

Here's a portion of Roe v. Wade addressing this issue. It runs on much much longer but is more detailed and interesting:

quote:

IV

The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common law. Connecticut, the first State to enact abortion legislation, adopted in 1821 that part of Lord Ellenborough's Act that related to a woman "quick with child." 29 The death penalty was not imposed. Abortion before quickening was made a crime in that State only in 1860. 30 In 1828, New York enacted legislation 31 that, in two respects, was to serve as a model for early anti-abortion statutes. First, while barring destruction of an unquickened fetus as well as a quick fetus, it made the former only a misdemeanor, but the latter second-degree manslaughter. Second, it incorporated a concept of therapeutic abortion by providing that an abortion was excused if it "shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for such purpose." By 1840, when Texas had received the common law, 32 only eight American States [410 U.S. 113, 139] had statutes dealing with abortion. 33 It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law. Most of these initial statutes dealt severely with abortion after quickening but were lenient with it before quickening. Most punished attempts equally with completed abortions. While many statutes included the exception for an abortion thought by one or more physicians to be necessary to save the mother's life, that provision soon disappeared and the typical law required that the procedure actually be necessary for that purpose.

Gradually, in the middle and late 19th century the quickening distinction disappeared from the statutory law of most States and the degree of the offense and the penalties were increased. By the end of the 1950's, a large majority of the jurisdictions banned abortion, however and whenever performed, unless done to save or preserve the life of the mother. 34 The exceptions, Alabama and the District of Columbia, permitted abortion to preserve the mother's health. 35 Three States permitted abortions that were not "unlawfully" performed or that were not "without lawful justification," leaving interpretation of those standards to the courts. 36 In [410 U.S. 113, 140] the past several years, however, a trend toward liberalization of abortion statutes has resulted in adoption, by about one-third of the States, of less stringent laws, most of them patterned after the ALI Model Penal Code, 230.3, 37 set forth as Appendix B to the opinion in Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 205.

It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity [410 U.S. 113, 141] to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy.

...

X

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

I think if the Supreme Court had harm in mind that they would have said harm. I suspect the wording was carefully chosen.

I agree with their decision that was made in the absence of objective knowledge, and the decision makes clear that they are doing the best they can without such knowledge.

So, like I say, you agree with the decision. But simultaneously claim you don't know.

I'm fine with the Roe v. Wade decision, which just like me claims they don't know.

If all you're saying is that you don't know whether the baby is alive or a person or whatever before birth, well ok, that's a dumb argument but ok, but if you're saying because of that, you don't know whether it's right or wrong to kill a baby just before birth - whilst agreeing with Roe - I just don't know what to say.

I think you're taking things you feel are true and mistaking them for things you know are true. Roe v. Wade clearly expressed the great amount of uncertainty. The justices had to make a decision, even in the absence of certainty. I don't have to make a decision, but I'm fine with Roe v. Wade. I do think it would be improved if this part were modified, because it's the part that allows abortion clinics to be shuttered by forcing upon them too-stringent requirements (this also appeared as part of the long quote above):

quote: Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives

NoNukes writes:

I don't understand all the attention being given legal opinions.

I asked you for your definition of personhood. You are the one who introduced the term into our discussion.

Why would I have my own definition of personhood? I already said I'm using the one from Wikipedia. I quoted this portion back in Message 413, which says:

quote:Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty.

Later in your message you talk about the legal definition of personhood, and apparently there is one here in the US. In the section under American Law it says:

quote:In Federal law, the concept of legal personhood is formalized by statute (1 USC §8) as a "member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."

So obviously a fetus, having by definition not yet been born, is not a person. But does the fetus have some of the rights of personhood?

That's what the Wikipedia article on human beings was commenting on that I quoted back in Message 336, that "various levels of personhood" are extended to fetuses in some jurisdictions. It doesn't say that they extend personhood to fetuses, just "various levels of personhood":

quote:The zygote divides inside the female's uterus to become an embryo, which over a period of 38 weeks (9 months) of gestation becomes a fetus. After this span of time, the fully grown fetus is birthed from the woman's body and breathes independently as an infant for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend various levels of personhood earlier to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus.

I'm interpreting "levels of personhood" to refer to some of the rights of personhood, such as the right to life.